Wednesday, July 6, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, the death toll
from the Baghdad weekend bombing increases, the Iraq Inquiry dominates
the news, Tony Blair weeps, and much more.

Today, the long delayed Iraq Inquiry report was released.
John Chilcot chaired the inquiry and it's also known as the Chilcot
Inquiry. After many years of delays, the official report has finally
been issued. Steve Cannane (Australia's ABC NEWS) explains it's been seven years since the inquiry began and that the report "is 2.6 million words long." Griff Witte (WASHINGTON POST) maintains, "The findings offer official validation to the views of the Iraq War’s
most ardent critics, forensically eviscerating in the sober language of
the British civil service nearly every aspect of the conflict’s
conception, planning and execution."

The former civil servant said that Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein posed "no imminent threat" when the U.S-led
invasion was launched in March 2003, and that while military action
against him "might have been necessary at some point," the "strategy of
containment" could have continued for some time.

Chilcot
said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was warned of the risks
of regional instability and the rise of terrorism before the invasion of
Iraq, but pressed on regardless.

The
UK failed to appreciate the complexity of governing Iraq, and did not
devote enough forces to the task of securing the country in the wake of
the invasion, he added.

The UK chose to join the invasion of
Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted.
Military action at that time was not a last resort.

Military action might have been
necessary later, but in March 2003: There was no imminent threat from
Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and
continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported
continuing UN inspections and monitoring.

Judgements about the severity of
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were
presented with a certainty that was not justified.

Nick Clark (Great Britain SOCIALIST WORKER) emphasizes the reports findings regarding the lies used to frighten people into supporting the war:Tony Blair’s “dodgy” dossier gets an entire chapter in the Chilcot Inquiry’s report into the Iraq war, published today.Blair’s government published the dossier in September 2002 to back up
the case for war with “intelligence” on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMDs). This intelligence later turned out to be false.But the dossier is also controversial for having been “sexed
up”—sensationalised—by Blair’s director of communications and strategy
Alistair Campbell.It is most infamous for implying that Iraq had WMDs that could be
launched against British military bases in Cyprus within 45 minutes.Despite agreeing that the purpose of the dossier was to “make the
case” for action against Iraq, the report remarkably finds that, “There
is no evidence that intelligence was improperly included in the dossier
or that No.10 improperly influenced the text.”Yet the chapter on the dossier describes several examples of Campbell
suggesting draft changes and asking for rewrites before the dossier was
published.For instance the report describes a meeting on the dossier chaired by Campbell in September 2002.

Quoting a passage from Campbell’s own published diaries, the report
says, “Commenting on the meeting, Mr Campbell wrote that the dossier:
‘…had to be revelatory and we needed to show that it was new and
informative and part of a bigger case’.”

MEDIA LENS notes
that the inquiry's report ignores the media (but MEDIA LENS gives an
overview of the British media and how it failed to challenge or question
the march to illegal war). We'll note this from MEDIA LENS' overview:John Pilger
aside, no mainstream journalist has sought to draw attention to the
deep complicity of the media in suppressing the most important facts
contradicting the US/UK case for war. Even radical journalists like
Robert Fisk, Greg Palast and George Monibot have failed to discuss the
role of the liberal media -- The Guardian, The Observer, The
Independent, the Independent on Sunday, and the BBC and ITN news -- in
burying these facts and in thereby making war possible.

TARIQALI:
It took seven -- it took seven years because it -- it took seven years
because every single person interviewed had to have a chance to see the
report, and Blair and his lawyers were looking at the fine print very
closely, as were the generals and other people.The findings of the report, quite honestly, are not very remarkable
or original, as Sami has already said. These were things that were being
said by all of us before this war started. It was what virtually every
speaker said at the million-strong Stop the War demonstration in London.
Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn, in particular, have been saying all this.
So, to have official confirmation that what we were all saying was right
is nice, but it’s too little and too late.

And because the report had no desire or was not permitted to discuss
the legality of this exercise, it means that while there is evidence in
the report for independent lawyers to proceed and file a citizen suit,
the report itself doesn’t allow the state to actually prosecute Blair
for war crimes. He is a war criminal. He pushed the country into this
illegal war. His supporters in Parliament are trying to get rid of
Jeremy Corbyn, who was 100 percent right on this war, backed by the bulk
of the media. So we’re in a strange situation now. The report, I think,
will anger lots of people who, unlike us, were not convinced by the
movement that what was taking place was a lie, based on a lie, and it
was illegal. What is going to happen now remains to be seen, but I would
very much hope that independent groups of lawyers and jurists demand
now that Blair is charged and tried. It’s very clear he pushed the war.
He forced the intelligence services to prepare dodgy dossiers. He pushed
his attorney general to changing his opinions before he was allowed to
address the Cabinet. All that, we have in the report. The question is:
Is anyone going to answer for it, or is this just designed to be
therapeutic?

War Criminal Tony Blair had a response to the report. RT's headline says it all: "Blair pledges 'no excuses' for Iraq, then spends 2hrs making excuses."
While Tony Blair wept in his press conference, spokesperson John Kirby
attempted to avoid the report in today's US State Dept press briefing:QUESTION: Yeah, just a few questions off the back of the Chilcot
conclusions. Is there agreement in this building that the U.S. and the UK went to war before exhausting all peaceful options, all options for disarmament, which is one of the conclusions?MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speak to the findings of the
Chilcot report. That’s really for the Government of the UK to talk to,
and I’m certainly not going to relitigate the decisions that led to the
Iraq war here from the podium in July of 2016. I’m just not going to do
that.QUESTION: Sure, but could you say whether the report mostly confirmed the U.S. assessment of mistakes made and what went wrong?MR KIRBY: We’re not examining the report with that in mind,
with trying to do the forensics. This is, again, a UK report. We’re
going to let UK officials speak to it. What I can tell you is our focus
is on trying to get a political transition in Syria, trying to defeat
[the Islamic State] in Iraq and in Syria, trying to help Prime Minister
Abadi make the
necessary political and economic reforms he knows he needs to make in
his country. That’s where Secretary Kerry’s head is, and we’re not
interested in relitigating the decisions that led to the Iraq War in
2003.QUESTION: Sure. Just one last question: Do you think this document could be helpful for policymakers here in any way?MR KIRBY: Again, I don’t – we’re not going to make a judgment
one way or the other about this report, and I’ll let British officials
speak to the degree to which they intend to derive lessons learned from
it. That’s really, again, for them to talk to. We’re not going to go
through it, we’re not going to examine it, we’re not going to try to do
an analysis of it or make a judgment of the findings one way or the
other. Our focus, again, is on the challenges we have in Iraq and Syria
right now, and that’s where our focus is.QUESTION: So you’ve basically moved on, is what you’re saying.MR KIRBY: Our focus is on what’s going on in Iraq and Syria right now.QUESTION: So – but you were not really a bystander. You’re
saying you’ll let them speak. I mean, you’re a part of this war, right?
You are the major part of that war, and this report basically is saying
that this war, much as many American lawmakers --MR KIRBY: I think --QUESTION: -- and others concluded, that this war was premised
on wrong premises. It was conducted in the wrong way; it was handled
thereafter – that resulted in the mess that we have today. I mean, that
is basically where you need to comment.MR KIRBY: That’s where I need to comment?QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, what I’m saying is that – yeah. I mean, this is really a major report by your major ally in the war.MR KIRBY: And I believe --QUESTION: The war --

MR KIRBY: I believe that UK officials are taking it seriously
and I’m going to let them speak to it, Said. I’m not going to relitigate
the decisions that led to the Iraq War here, July 2016. You all have
reported on those decisions all these many years. The record is out
there for anybody to see and to evaluate on their own. Secretary Kerry
is focused on trying to help Prime Minister Abadi do the things he needs
to do in Iraq and to defeat [the Islamic State] there and in Syria, and we’re going
to stay focused on those goals. That’s where our focus is right now, not
on doing the forensics on decisions that were made 13 years ago.

In response to today’s publication of the Iraq Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot’s much-awaited report on the UK’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq war, Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International said:“In the lead-up to the invasion, Amnesty International urged that the
potentially grave consequences of military action be carefully
assessed. And on the eve of the US-led invasion we urged full respect
for international human rights law and international humanitarian law.“Tragically, our fears about the safety of the civilian population
were well-founded. Thousands of civilians were killed and injured,
including in unlawful attacks; millions of people were forced from their
homes; and the whole country was thrown into chaos as the occupation
forces failed to fulfil their obligation to maintain security.“While the Chilcot Report did not strictly focus on human rights, any
meaningful assessment of the US-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath
cannot ignore the devastating human rights legacy it has left for
millions of Iraqis. The UK and US governments cynically used Saddam
Hussein’s appalling human rights record – as documented in Amnesty
International reports – to help build public support for going to war.
Their conduct during the occupation soon laid bare their hypocrisy in
exploiting human rights rhetoric.“In fact, the subsequent occupation was characterized by widespread
human rights violations. Thirteen years on, the invasion’s aftermath has
become synonymous with shocking images of torture of detainees at Abu
Ghraib, the killing of Baha Mousa in UK custody, spiralling sectarian
violence and suicide bombings that have claimed tens of thousands more
lives.

“One way of showing that the UK government has tried to
learn some of the lessons of Iraq would be for it to ensure that current
investigations into allegations of unlawful killing and torture and
other ill-treatment at the hands of the UK armed forces in Iraq are
truly effective and robust. This must include a proper assessment as to
the degree to which human rights violations were systemic and apportion
responsibility at all levels, something that has been sorely absent to
date.“Wherever there is sufficient admissible evidence, those
suspected of criminal responsibility – no matter their rank or position –
must be prosecuted in fair trials, while victims and their families
must receive full reparation. The UK must also fully cooperate with the
International Criminal Court’s preliminary examination into alleged
crimes by UK nationals in Iraq from 2003 to 2008, including murder,
torture and other ill-treatment.”

For those looking to understand the legacy of the Iraq War, the huge
encampment of 85,000 civilians living on the outskirts of Fallujah is a
good place to start.
As British politicians and journalists rush to assessSir John Chilcot’s verdict on the 2003 invasion – the broken city of Fallujah provides a terrible example of what happens to a country when it is torn apart by conflict.

I am an Iraqi citizen, working for an NGO supporting children affected
by the conflict. While I understand the need to look back on the
decisions that led to the Iraq War, I need to take this opportunity to
urge UK politicians to do more to help those who are still affected by
the conflict today.

Back to the State Dept press briefing today:

QUESTION: Let me stay with – on Iraq. Today there are reports on the Popular Mobilization Committees --MR KIRBY: On the what?QUESTION: -- or militias – that they have – the Popular
Mobilization – it’s a Shia militia supported by Iran, but there seems to
be a split along religious grounds. Some want to give allegiance to
Najaf, which is a holy place; others to Qom in Iran and so on. Do you
have any reports on this, and do you – are you concerned that this may
actually further exacerbate an already very bad internecine kind of
conflict there more?MR KIRBY: Well, a couple of thoughts. I mean, first, we’ve
said all along that we don’t want to see any decisions made by anybody
in the fight against [the Islamic State] result in inflamed sectarian tensions,
period. We’ve said that from the very beginning. We have commended Prime
Minister Abadi’s efforts to be inclusive as he goes after this threat
in his country, and he’s doing that. And he and other leaders in the
Iraqi Government we think have done a commendable job folding in the
capabilities of the PMF – Popular Mobilization Forces – into some of
these operations. That is an internal matter that they have discussed,
that they have decided. We have supported that process. But we don’t
want to see anybody by dint of what they’re doing against [the Islamic State] further
inflame sectarian tensions in the country; that – that’s
counterproductive in our view.

And the PMF have proven helpful in the fight against Fallujah. And I
won’t speak to future operations and the role that they’ll play or how
they’re going to be factored in, but [the Islamic State] is now not in Fallujah and
Iraqi Security Forces fought well, fought bravely, fought competently to
get them out. Certainly it was a challenge; we knew that, and there was
some support by the coalition. PMF were a part of that effort. But how
they’re factored into future operations, again, that’s for Prime
Minister Abadi to speak to.

Today, the US Defense Dept announced:

Strikes in IraqFighter, attack, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted
14 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s
government:-- Near Baghdadi, a strike destroyed an ISIL bunker.-- Near Huwayjah, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit
and destroyed an ISIL front-end loader and denied ISIL access to
terrain.-- Near Beiji, a strike destroyed an ISIL command-and-control node.-- Near Kisik, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and
destroyed an ISIL assembly area and suppressed an ISIL rocket firing
position.-- Near Mosul, a strike struck an ISIL vehicle bomb factory.-- Near Qayyarah, three strikes struck two separate ISIL
tactical units and destroyed an ISIL mortar system, an ISIL vehicle, an
ISIL rocket system and an ISIL headquarters.-- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical
units and destroyed 10 ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL artillery piece,
an ISIL vehicle, two ISIL rocket-propelled-grenade systems, five ISIL
heavy machine guns, an ISIL boat and an ISIL sniper position.-- Near Waleed, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL fighting position.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic
events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a
single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a
single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle
is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons
against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for
example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or
impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not
report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number
of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual
munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in
counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a
strike.

Also today, the death toll from the weekend Baghdad bombing continued to climb.

If I had Facebook or Twitter, I'd be using the Iraqi flag or something similar to show solidarity.

I just have blogspot so I'll note that my prayers go out to all those who lost loved ones in the tragic attack.

I have not forgotten how Iraqi MoonNor27 made a point of using her Twitter account to express solidarity with the victims and families after the Orlando attack.

Her country is torn apart and sees something similar to Orlando every day pretty much.

But she made time and effort to notice the suffering of others and we should be willing and able to do the same here in America.

It was a horrible attack and it has destroyed families and dreams and my
heart and prayers go out to the victims and their families and friends.

Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Assyrian, whatever, I am one with the people of Iraq
as a member of the human race and I am saddened by the attack and the
loss of life as well as the tragedy of those who were wounded and must
now try to live in a country that we (the US) bomb from the air as well
as a country that faces bombs on the ground along with other violence.